I'll have to repeat points I've already made above before I can answer your question: it depends on how you define it and what context you're asking me to use it in. In some cases yes and in some cases no. You're giving me something with a lot of moving parts and asking me to endorse it/reject it based on a very limited view with almost no context.

Is stabbing your neighbor in the eye with a lawn dart rational? I promise you that I can devise a scenario in which it is.

I wouldn't call that "love", but you've described lust quite well. Lust only involves satisfying your own urges and therefore has no relation to love, which I have already defined as a willingness or even desire to put another's wants and needs ahead of your own, and acting on it. Lust is also quite rational, whereas love is not.

And I still contend that this was perfectly on-topic in the belief thread, but I do fully appreciate exactly why you moved it.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

That's entirely subjective. Your definition completely ignores huge components of romantic love, etc. Someone else could also claim to define love as simply as possible and come up with something completely different from what you have here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

It is my contention that love is irrational. Wouldn't you agree that it is?

I would absolutely agree that "love" can be irrational, yes. It depends entirely on how you're defining it and in which context you using it.

ABE: The fact is that "love" (and all emotions for that matter) are nothing more than chemical processes going on in the brain. This is quite observable. So the question I have is why are we using an observable phenomenon to draw an analogy to something that is not?

Someone else could also claim to define love as simply as possible and come up with something completely different from what you have here.

They could, but then they wouldn't be describing love, now would they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I would absolutely agree that "love" can be irrational, yes. It depends entirely on how you're defining it and in which context you using it.

OK, then how would you define it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

ABE: The fact is that "love" (and all emotions for that matter) are nothing more than chemical processes going on in the brain. This is quite observable. So the question I have is why are we using an observable phenomenon to draw an analogy to something that is not?

Because love is irrational, mainly because it is usually to the detriment of the one who loves, and yet you acknowledge it and support it. Society generally encourages it as opposed to hate, an emotion that makes far more sense to me.

My point is that something's being irrational doesn't automatically make it bad, or, more importantly, invalid.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

If I love my wife, I've found someone with whom I can reproduce effectively. If I continue to love her, then I've found someone with whom I can share the responsibility of parenthood and raise a child to adulthood.

If I love my daughter, I'm going to be protective of her because I'll want the best possible partner for her when she's an adult and she can pass on my DNA. Hopefully the best parts.

If I love my neighbor, I'm positioning my self for favor in the future -politicking so that I'm looked upon favorably and, thus, adding another "friend" to my social network. Friends are beneficial in times of need (large needs and small needs).

And so on.

All this occurs behind the scenes, under the guise of "love," but all with the ultimate aim of reproducing and raising/protecting that reproduction; positioning that reproduction for the best possible future.

Is it? I don't think it is. You either love someone or you don't. No semantics involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

I don't think it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

I

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

think

Question: how do we distinguish between something that is subjective and something that is objective.

Hint: is "l" and "think" language indicative of opinion (subjective) or fact (objective)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

That's because "romantic love" is merely love mixed with lust.

That is your definition, sir, and you are welcome to it, as it has little bearing on my point (which is that your earlier definition is very narrow and misses much).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

They could, but then they wouldn't be describing love, now would they?

Sure they would. And the two of you could argue until the cows come home over which of you is right and which of you is wrong, but it wouldn't change that you were both subjectively defining the term to your suit your own means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

OK, then how would you define it?

Main Entry: love
Pronunciation: \ˈləv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lēof dear, Latin lubēre, libēre to please
Date: before 12th century

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>

2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>

<snip>

4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another <snip>

<snip>

6: an amorous episode : love affair

7: the sexual embrace : copulation

<snip>

<snip>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

Because love is irrational,

Thank you for sharing that opinion with us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

mainly because it is usually to the detriment of the one who loves,

Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

and yet you acknowledge it and support it.

I'm not sure what this means. I acknowledge the phenomenon because it is observable. Would it be rational to do otherwise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

Society generally encourages it as opposed to hate, an emotion that makes far more sense to me.

Opinion based on your own biases and experiences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

My point is that something's being irrational doesn't automatically make it bad, or, more importantly, invalid.

Well, except for the whole "unable to establish any of this as being something other than your 2 cents" thing. Your whole point is based on your opinion and while I would never begrudge you your opinion, that doesn't mean that I have to find it persuasive.

Ultimately, its all about passing DNA on.
<snip>
Or, at least, its my educated opinion.

Well, I hope that your wife shares your opinion, or at the very least is not a member here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Well, except for the whole "unable to establish any of this as being something other than your 2 cents" thing. Your whole point is based on your opinion and while I would never begrudge you your opinion, that doesn't mean that I have to find it persuasive.

Main Entry: love
Pronunciation: \ˈləv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lēof dear, Latin lubēre, libēre to please
Date: before 12th century

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>

2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>

<snip>

4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another <snip>

<snip>

6: an amorous episode : love affair

7: the sexual embrace : copulation

Apparently my "opinion" somehow found its way into the dictionary. Yes, it may be only one definition, but once you wash away all of the semantic BS you'll find that it's the only definition.

And I didn't even need to consult a dictionary to know it.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Yes, of course. It is observable. Why wouldn't I believe that it exists?

I'll even agree that that particular flavor of love can lead to irrational behavior. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it exists, hence why this distraction has nothing to do with the topic we were originally discussing.

To recap: Yes, love exists. Yes, sometimes it manifests itself via irrational behavior. The 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st. The 1st point, being an observable phenomenon, is not a valid analogy for the existence of god, an unobservable phenomenon. I hope that helps.

Don't mind me, I'm just posting an conversation about this which may be interesting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by C

So it seems that most of us have irrational beliefs of one kind or other, or delusions.

The second greatest perhaps being a belief in deity.

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

Well I'm gonna say the belief that you are loved.

Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.

I believe I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my friends.

There is though no empirical evidence to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must believe that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.

Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Your first mistake is considering love to be (only) a feeling. Love is put to the test, feelings are not. For example, you can say: "That wasn't real love, just infatuation." But you can't say: "That wasn't a real pain (or sound, feeling, taste etc)." There is a clear logical difference between a feeling and the concept of love. So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A

One could argue then that love is both: a feeling and something you can put to the test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Sure, I don't discount that. But love, as a concept, is much more than just a feeling. Otherwise it'd just be infatuation, not love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A

If I may ask, how do you define love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

I don't, although I like some (limited) descriptions of it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 13:1-8a and 13

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails....And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I'm not religious but these words are true. It's not meant to delineate the entire concept of love, but just to show: these things are part of love, and other things can be also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A

That Biblical passage is, to date, the best description of love I've seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.

That's a little contradictory no? 'It's not a question of evidence' vs 'whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house'

So if a smile is evidence of love, or wind, or a deception, then it is subjective? You can take a smile as evidence of love, but even then you are choosing to believe that is what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

Love is a feeling.
Feelings are completely subjective.
Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

I disagreed with the first premise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C

Do you not consider infatuation to be a kind of love, perhaps a precursor even?

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

No, I consider it infatuation - though I won't deny that infatuation often comes before love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C

What would you say the differance is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Pretty much similar to wiki's answer on the subject. It's typically characterized by "a lack of trust, loyalty, commitment, and reciprocity." In my response to A you can see some of the ways that love would be different from that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

Love is a feeling.
Feelings are completely subjective.
Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

I disagreed with the first premise.

Sorry I don't think I said that. If you are paraphrasing me, I think you have the wrong end of the stick mate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Yes, I paraphrased for clarity. In what way did I misunderstand you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by C

I did not say that love is a feeling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Nonetheless, I believe my point was valid. In your original post, it quite clearly indicates that love is taken to be subjective. In the same way we "can't know" whether someone feels pain, we "can't know" whether someone loves another. I disagreed with this idea and I gave an example for why it is not possible to coherently treat it as an exclusively subjective experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English.

To be pedantic, the belief that the sunset is beautiful is on much more steady ground than the belief that another loves you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Logically I don't think it does rest on steadier ground, which was my point. I wanted to show that, in this situation ("the sunset is beautiful") we do not question it-- but now we question another situation ("I love you") that has a similar logical form.

Suppose a parent - who makes their child lunches for school, flies kites with them on weekends, reads them bedtime stories, comforts them when they're hurt and protects them when in danger - says to their child, "I love you." Why is that more doubtful than than the statement "the sunset is beautiful"? I say: there is no steadier ground than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B

Because the statement, "the sunset is beautiful", is a statement relating to the self, and I agree with you that we cannot doubt our phenomenological experiences; at least, we cannot doubt that we are having them, that we experience an aesthetically pleasing scene.

There is more doubt, however, in regards to statements relating to others, such as someone else saying "I love you". I can doubt that you genuinely love me in a way I cannot when considering my own state of mind; no matter the outward behavioral evidence.

Though, we'd live a rather poor life if we constantly did doubt as I say above. It is, as I mentioned, a rather pedantic point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

I was thinking of someone else saying that the sunset was beautiful, just as someone else would say that they love you. I don't think we really disagree here.

Thanks for posting that exchange. The problem with defining/testing love is the same problem that you have for defining/testing any emotion. You can accurately identify a range of feelings, usually associated with a corresponding set of behaviors, but you cannot point to one specific subset of either and say that it accounts for all of it.

As for being able to identify specific emotions in others, well, that's complicated. As social creatures, most of us are well adapted to recognize certain cues, however those cues can be faked convincingly. To that end, one would have to accept that yes, it truly is impossible to determine 100% that someone is feeling something. However that doesn't mean that we cannot accurately deduce whether someone is genuinely feeling the emotions that they say they are feeling.

Simply put, I would define love as a willingness to put another's needs and desires before your own, and acting on it.

One definition, perhaps the truest. Least it works out that way when one looks for a lasting example.

Now: Is the thesis an explorative one or a definitive one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

Last question: is love rational?

It depends on the type of love, which could be messy to sort out. It could be either one, but not both at the same time. All logic is truth, but not all truth is logical...

For those with no spirituality, I guess you could substitute that last one with:
All logic is truth, but not all truth necessarily makes sense.

In all seriousness, there are many cases in which the word love could be (and is) used. Context, situation, meanings, mindsets...we really could get technical I suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

*brevity*
Main Entry: love
Pronunciation: \ˈləv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lēof dear, Latin lubēre, libēre to please
Date: before 12th century

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>

2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>

<snip>

4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another <snip>

<snip>

6: an amorous episode : love affair

7: the sexual embrace : copulation

Hmm, we turn to the dictionary. We could learn a lot from what is said by it. And even stuff from what isn't said.

Still, to be fair, we do need a rational compass. It certainly neatens things up and puts order and rationality to a subject which could become irrational all too easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Yes, of course. It is observable. Why wouldn't I believe that it exists?

I'll even agree that that particular flavor of love can lead to irrational behavior. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it exists, hence why this distraction has nothing to do with the topic we were originally discussing.

To recap: Yes, love exists. Yes, sometimes it manifests itself via irrational behavior. The 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st. The 1st point, being an observable phenomenon, is not a valid analogy for the existence of god, an unobservable phenomenon. I hope that helps.

You don't believe in god? What a surprise.

@ thread

I guess I can endeavor to talk on the point of lasting love vs one night stand.

In a simple manner it is the continuum of one extreme to another. Could it be whatever you believe it to be? That's hard to answer. I could say no, but the infatuated would then disagree with me--perhaps even to gunpoint. I could say yes, but then those like Jae, and even my own parents would probably lecture me into the ground.

FTR I have my own position on this, but for the sake of debate and discourse (however you prefer, Q) I am going to play 's advocate.

I mean, who is to say what you think and feel at the moment isn't real; isn't true?

Who could truly say what the "truth" of such matters are? Whether or not it is true?

How objective is it? How subjective is it?

Over time, how can one tell it's true and not just some...circumstance or special phenomena?

What is it if it's static and long lasting? What is it if it's dynamic and short?

See what I mean? Love can be of limited time or timeless. Can be full or empty. Can be dull or dynamic. Long or short.

I guess my general answer is "It depends." There are many unknowns which would first need to be...known.

We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

To recap: Yes, love exists. Yes, sometimes it manifests itself via irrational behavior. The 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st. The 1st point, being an observable phenomenon, is not a valid analogy for the existence of god, an unobservable phenomenon. I hope that helps.

The point that I was trying to make through this lengthy exercise is that irrationality does not automatically disqualify validity. That's all.

I wasn't trying to use the existence of love as analogy for the existence of God. I was only trying to make the above point.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

The point that I was trying to make through this lengthy exercise is that irrationality does not automatically disqualify validity. That's all.

But you haven't done that.

Even if I were to accept that love was irrational (which I do not), that doesn't even begin to address the problem of validity. The real argument you're presenting is whether or not love itself is rational (which is debatable). What you aren't addressing is whether or not love exists. Love can be observed, so no rational person would question its existence. The "validity" of love never even comes up, therefore your argument can't possibly do what you think it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

I wasn't trying to use the existence of love as analogy for the existence of God. I was only trying to make the above point.

With all due respect, you've failed miserably.

If you truly want to show that irrationality doesn't preclude validity, don't use something that can be empirically observed as a basis for your analogy. Furthermore, you're also dragging your personal bias that love is inherently irrational into your argument which seems to be preventing you from viewing the problem objectively. My 2 cents.

P.S. at the risk of putting my foot in my mouth by speaking for someone else, I don't think Skinwalker was arguing that love doesn't exist. I think he was simply pointing out that it's the product of a chemical reaction in the brain. Not the same thing.

"Yes, of course. It is observable. Why wouldn't I believe that it exists?"

Did you answer my question? Did you make any attempt to follow up your argument in any way?

Asking a question and addressing a point are not the same thing. Offering up multiple premises and thinking that acknowledgment of one validates the others or somehow makes your point is not forming an argument.

Nothing you've offered shows that love existing supports your point (aside from saying that it does). What you have offered are a number of false premises leading to a flawed conclusion which is supposed to act as some sort of false analogy which I think was supposed to validate theism...or something.

P.S. You've wormed your way around every attempt I've made to nail you down to a position in this topic. If you don't intend on actually debating your topic, then please excuse yourself from this thread. Thanks in advance.

You claim that it is observable. How do you know that what you are observing is indeed love? Is it provable?

And, as I stated above, my position is that love does not exist:

So your asserting that love, by this definition: a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>

Sir, you may have forgotten that you pleaded with me to for the opportunity to show that point was directly related, but I have not.

You could have picked another example. You could have opted not to participate in the thread at all. Yet neither of those things happened and now you're asking me to accept that your argument has nothing to do with the thread you raised it in? Sir, how stupid do you think I am?

I have already pointed out that your argument fails. I invite you again to address the points I raised in post #32 if you hope to convince me otherwise.

Easy enough. People are full of ****. They'll say anything to get what they want from each other and to rationalize their motives and actions. I've never observed any evidence of the real thing; only lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Sir, you may have forgotten that you pleaded with me to for the opportunity to show that point was directly related, but I have not.

I did no such thing. I was only responding to this statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Just to make sure that we're perfectly clear, I am anti-irrationalism. If you hold a belief that is irrational, then I am against that belief.

Perhaps I could/should have been more clear, but I wanted to see if you acknowledged the existence of something I thought to be irrational, and the first thing that popped into my head was love. I was curious. That is all I was addressing. I apologize for the confusion.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."